Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ABSTRACT
The application of the Manning equation to partially filled circular pipes is considered. Three different
approaches based on the Manning equation are analyzed and compared: (1) using a constant value for the
roughness coefficient n and defining the hydraulic radius as the flow area divided by the wetted perimeter. (2) Taking the variation of n with the depth of flow into account and employing the same definition
of the hydraulic radius. (3) Defining the hydraulic radius as the flow area divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and one-half of the width of the airwater surface and assuming n is constant. It is shown
that the latter two approaches lead to similar predictions when 0.1 # h/D # 1.0. With any one of these
approaches, tedious iterative calculations become necessary when diameter (D), slope (S), and flow rate
(Q) are given, and one needs to find the depth of flow (h/D) and the velocity (V ). Simple explicit formulas are derived for each of the three approaches. These equations are accurate enough to be used in design and sufficiently simple to be used with a hand calculator.
Key words: hydraulic radius; Manning equation; roughness coefficient; sewer design
INTRODUCTION
or
1
V 5 } Rh2/3S1/2
n
(1)
A
Q 5 } Rh2/3S1/2
n
(2)
where V 5 the velocity (m/s), S 5 the slope of the energy grade line, Rh 5 the hydraulic radius defined as the
flow area divided by the wetted perimeter (m), A 5 the
cross-sectional area of flow (m2 ), Q 5 the discharge
(m3 /s), and n 5 Mannings coefficient of roughness. The
* Corresponding author: Faculty of Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, Marmara University, Goztepe
81040, Istanbul, Turkey. Phone/Fax: (90) 216-3481369; E-mail: akgiray@eng.marmara.edu.tr
371
372
AKGIRAY
following additional notation will be used in what follows: h 5 the depth of the water (m), D 5 the pipe diameter (m), u 5 the water surface angle in radians (see
Fig. 1). The values of the hydraulic radius and the flow
area are fixed once h/D or u is specified [Equations
(3)(5)].
If D, S, and h/D are known, one can calculate the other
variables A, Rh, Q, and V in a straightforward manner. If,
on the other hand, D, S, and Q are given, iterative calculations are required to find h/D and V. Saat (1990,
1992) and Giroud et al. (2000) devised solutions to this
problem, eliminating the need for iterative calculations
in the range 0 # h/D , 0.938. There is no doubt that,
with modern software, the mentioned iterative calculations can be completed quickly and accurately. Be that
as it may, an explicit solution is always preferred over
an implicit equation that must be solved iteratively. The
usefulness of the explicit solutions of the Manning equation and possible applications were discussed by Wheeler
(1992).
The Manning equation is usually applied by assuming
that the roughness coefficient n is constant (Metcalf &
Eddy, 1981; Benefield et al., 1984). The equations presented by Saat (1990, 1992) and Giroud et al. (2000),
for example, are based on this assumption. On the other
hand, it is reported that n changes with the ratio h/D
(Camp, 1946). Therefore, it is desirable to have equations
similar to those given by Saat and Giroud et al. in case
the designer wants to account for the dependence of n on
the depth of flow (h/D).
For completely filled pipe flow, the use of the DarcyWeisbach equation in conjunction with the Colebrook
formula (or its equivalent, the Moody diagram) is well
established. By equating the head loss calculated by the
Manning equation (with Rh 5 D/4 and n 5 nf) to that
given by the Colebrook formula, it is possible to show
that nf depends on the Reynolds number, the relative
roughness e/D, and the pipe diameter D (see Appendix
for details). As discussed by Massey (1989), the dependence on Reynolds number can be ignored only at high
values of the Reynolds number. It is assumed here that
a proper value for nf (corresponding to given e/D and D)
is known; the effect of the ratio h/D on the value of the
ratio n/nf is considered in detail in what follows.
Saat (1990) and Wheeler (1992) mentioned the possibility of using an alternative definition of the hydraulic
radius that was recommended by Escritt (1984). In this
approach, the hydraulic radius is defined as the flow area
divided by the sum of the wetted perimeter and one-half
of the width of the airwater surface. Saat (1992) proposed an explicit solution applicable with this approach
as well, allowing the direct estimation of h/D when D, S,
and Q are given. This solution method can be used when
0 # h/D # 0.80.
Another situation that necessitates iterative calculations is when D, V, and Q are known, and one needs to
calculate S and h/D. Esen (1993) presented an explicit
solution applicable in the range 0.02 , h/D , 0.40.
The following is an outline of this paper:
In the first part, equations applicable to partially filled
pipes are reviewed. This helps introduce the notation and
the terminology used here, and lays down the basis of the
material presented later in the paper.
Second, the problem of finding h/D when D, S, and Q
are given and n is taken as a constant is examined. Here,
an explicit solution is presented to replace the two equations given by Saat (1990, 1992) over the range 0 ,
h/D , 0.938. The equation is slightly more accurate and
simpler in form. Furthermore, another equation is developed for the range 0.938 # h/D # 1.0, facilitating the explicit calculation (without iterations) of h/D over the entire range 0 , h/D # 1.0, provided that n is independent
of the depth of flow.
In the third part, the effect of the dependence of n on
h/D is examined. Using the data presented by Camp
(1946), an expression for n/nf as a function of the surface
angle u is derived. Explicit equations are presented to facilitate the direct calculation of h/D and V when D, S,
and Q are known.
Next, the use of Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius in the Manning equation is considered. In this approach, n is assumed to be constant. Again, explicit equations are developed allowing the direct calculation of h/D
and V when D, S, and Q are known.
In the fourth part, three different approaches employing the Manning equation are compared: (1) assuming
constant n and using the conventional definition of the
hydraulic radius; (2) taking the variation of n with the
depth of flow into account and using the conventional
definition of the hydraulic radius; (3) assuming constant
n and using Escritts hydraulic radius. It is shown that
373
THEORY
For a partially filled circular pipe with diameter D, the
following equations apply (see Fig. 1):
2h
u 5 2 cos21 1 2 }
D
D2
A 5 } (u 2 sin u)
8
(3)
(4)
where h is the depth of the water in the pipe, u is the water surface angle in radians, and A is the area of flow. It
may be noted that some authors use the symbol u to denote half of this angle. Referral to Fig. 1 should help
avoid any possible confusion.
The hydraulic radius Rh is usually defined as the flow
area divided by the wetted perimeter. It can thus be written as
D
Rh 5 }
4
u 2 sin u
1 }u} 2
(5)
u 2 sin u
}
1}
u 1 sin(u/2) 2
(6)
Escritt (1984) noted that turbulent flow in open channels is different from that in fully charged pipes or culverts for as soon as there is a free surface, waves form,
and these dissipate energy. Escritt explained his definition of hydraulic radius by stating that the dissipation of
energy by waves is directly related to the surface over
which this dissipation can take place.
It is common practice to apply the Manning equation
by defining a coefficient K as follows:
K
Q 5 } D8/3S1/2
(7)
n
Substituting Equations (4) and (5) into Equation (2) and
comparing the resulting expression with Equation (7)
yields the following relation between K and u:
Qn
Kh 5 }
5 2213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3u22/3 (8)
D8/3S1/2
where 2213/3 < 0.0496. The subscript h is used to emphasize that this expression is based on the usual definition of the hydraulic radius Rh [Equation (5)]. Equation
(8) holds regardless of whether n is a constant or a function of the depth of flow. To study the effect of the dependence of n on the flow depth, however, it will be convenient to define a new coefficient Khf based on the value
of n at full flow conditions:
n f Kh
Qnf
Kh
Kh f 5 }
5 } 5 }
8/3
1/2
D S
n
f(u)
(9)
1u 1 sin( }2 )2
u
22/3
u
5 Kh } }
u 1 sin(u/2)
2/3
(10)
374
AKGIRAY
It should be noted that these computations can be completed easily without the use of any nomographs or timeconsuming iterative calculations.
Another situation of interest is when nf, D, S, and Q
are known, and one needs to estimate h/D and V. Since
h/D and u are not known a priori, one cannot directly
calculate A, Rh, K, or n (when n is assumed to depend on
h/D). Iterative calculations are carried out in this case as
follows.
1. Substitute Equation (8) and the relation n/nf 5 f(u)
into Equation (7) to obtain:
2213/3 (u 2 sin u)5/3u22/3 5 n f f(u)QD28/3S21/2
(11)
1212 pKh
(12)
(13)
(14)
and
h
Q
} 5 0.9106 }2
D
VD
0.4256
0.6876
(15a)
(15b)
375
(17)
Figure 2.
(19a)
376
AKGIRAY
Figure 3.
where
X 5 1 2 h/D
(20)
h/D 5 (1 2 cos(u/2))/2
(21)
and
h/D 5 0 (i.e., 1 2 h/D 5 1) by assuming n 5 nf there, although Camp (1946) did not indicate the shape of the
curve for h/D , 0.025 [Equation (19a) predicts n/nf 5
1.11 at h/D 5 0.) As an alternative to Equation (19a), the
following expression has been developed, and will be presented here:
n
} 5 1 1 0.37X 0.58[sin(pX)]0.36
nf
(19b)
Figure 4. Data points were read from the curve given by Camp (1946). The curve drawn with the solid line is the polynomial
fitted to these points. The dashed lined is obtained from Equation (36).
377
(23), (24), (25), and (46)], as it agrees with the data points
in Camp (1946) better. Equation (19b), however, may be
easier to use when the value of n/nf is needed.
It should be noted that when Equations (20) and (21)
are substituted into Equation (19), one obtains the functional relation n/nf 5 f(u). Note also that, if the value of
n (say, n1 ) at a u value (say, u1) other than 2p is known,
the value of nf can be calculated (nf 5 n1 /f(u1)).
An inspection of Equation (9) shows that, since nf, D,
S, and Q are known in the situation considered here, one
can directly calculate Khf. The following equation then
needs to be solved for u:
2213/3(u 2 sinu)5/3u22/3
Qnf
Kh
Khf 5 }
5}
5 } } } (22)
8/3
1/2
f(u)
D S
f(u)
where f(u) is the expression given by Equations (19)(21).
Again, this is a nonlinear algebraic equation and could be
solved using an iterative procedure.
To find an explicit expression for u, it is first noted that
Khf has the maximum value 0.324642 at u 5 321.46136
(5.61056 radians). Note also that Equation (22) has two
roots in the range 0.311686 # Khf , 0.324642.
To eliminate iterative calculations, the following explicit approximate solution has been developed:
u 5 1.3645Khf20.2537cos21(1 2 6.1606Khf)
(23)
(24)
Equation (24) is very accurate, and can be used to calculate all the quantities that depend on u, including the
velocity V 5 8(Q/D2 )/(u 2 sinu), provided that u .
321.46. The following equation has been developed here
for the calculation of velocity when u # 321.46o:
D2/3S1/2
V 5 (10.18 2 9.61Khf0.0036)Khf0.336 }
nf
22/3
(10)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(25)
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT
APPROACHES
Saat (1990) and Wheeler (1992) refer to the work of
Escritt (1984), who recommended an alternative definition of the hydraulic radius [Equation (6) herein].
Wheeler (1992) states that Escritts definition of the hydraulic radius agrees with the observations in Fig. 24 of
the Manual of Practice (ASCE, 1976) within an average
of about 3%. The purpose of this section is to examine
ENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 21, NO. 3, 2004
378
AKGIRAY
Escritts approach and compare it with the use of the classical definition of the hydraulic radius in the Manning
equation.
While Saat (1990, 1992) and Wheeler (1992) were
considering the use of Equation (6) in conjunction with
the Manning formula, Escritt (1984) actually recommended the use of the following equation instead of the
Manning equation:
Q 5 76.253ARe0.62S1/2
(30)
(6)
Based on Equations (6) and (30), Escritt (1984) presented the values listed in Table 1 (Table 3 in Escritt,
1984). As a footnote in the table, Escritt states that these
values are based on numerous tests on partially-filled
small pipes and large sewers, and now accepted as more
accurate than previous figures. Escritt goes on to state
the following: In the past, tables and diagrams were prepared showing partially-filled circular pipes and culverts,
and on the basis of these theoretical calculations, it was
thought that at a depth of flow of 0.94 of the diameter,
the discharge would be about 1.0757 times the flowingfull discharge. For the reasons just described this has been
proved a fallacy, as is shown in Table 3. These statements seem to require a closer scrutiny.
First, although Q/Qf increases monotonically with h/D
in the table presented by Escritt, his formula predicts the
presence of a maximum in Q/Qf. It is an easy exercise to
show that the following expressions follow from Escritts
formula [Equation (30)].
(u 2 sin u)1.62
Q
1
} 5 } }}
Qf
2p (u 1 sin(u/2))0.62
(31a)
A/Af
V/Vf
Q/Qf
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
1
0.9480
0.8576
0.7477
0.6265
0.5000
0.3735
0.2523
0.1424
0.0520
1
1.0394
1.0189
0.9765
0.9173
0.8425
0.7517
0.6426
0.5095
0.3373
1
0.9853
0.8738
0.7301
0.5747
0.4213
0.2808
0.1621
0.0725
0.0176
u 2 sin u
V
} 5 }}
u 1 sin(u/2)
Vf
0.62
(31b)
The Q/Qf and V/Vf values in the table are consistent with
these equations. Differentiating Equation (31a) with respect to u, setting d(Q/Qf)/du 5 0 and solving for u gives
the following values: u 5 322.04 (h/D 5 0.9728) and
(Q/Qf)max 5 1.022. Therefore, Escritts formula also predicts a maximum in Q/Qf, although this maximum is
weaker and occurs at a greater flow depth than that predicted by the Manning formula with the usual definition
of the hydraulic radius. Escritts table contains Q/Qf values at the discrete values h/D 5 0.9 and h/D 5 1.0, and
therefore, the maximum at h/D 5 0.9728 is not visible in
the table. Figure 5 displays the curve (labeled Curve I)
obtained from Equation (31a).
Also plotted in Fig. 5 are three additional curves. These
are explained next.
Curve II is obtained using the Manning equation and the
usual definition of the hydraulic radius [Equations (2) and
(5)]. It is derived by assuming that n is independent of h/D:
Q
1 (u 2 sin u)5/3
}
} 5 } } 2/3
u
Qf
2p
(32)
1 2
379
Figure 5. Curve I: Escritts formula [Equation (30)] with Escritts hydraulic radius [Equation (6)]. Curve II: Manning equation,
constant n 5 nf, usual definition of hydraulic radius [Equation (5)]. Curve III: Manning equation, variable n, usual definition of
hydraulic radius. Curve IV: Manning equation, constant n 5 nf, Escritts hydraulic radius.
Figure 6.
It should be noted that the Manning equation [Equation (2)] and Escritts formula [Equation (30)] do not give
the same Qf value when applied to completely filled
pipes, although the two hydraulic radii are the same when
h/D 5 1 (Re 5 Rh 5 D/4). This means that the prediction
of approximately the same Q/Qf values by the two formulas (as in curves I and III or curves I and IV in Fig.
5) does not mean that the Q values calculated will be in
agreement. Note also that Escritts formula [Equation
(30)] does not include a roughness coefficient similar
to Mannings n. No further consideration will be given
to Equation (30) here. The use of Escritts hydraulic
380
AKGIRAY
radius [Equation (6)] in the Manning equation, however, will be discussed in some detail in what follows.
In practice, the Manning equation is most commonly
applied by using a constant value for n (Chow, 1959;
Metcalf & Eddy, 1981; Benefield et al., 1984). Equation
(5) is normally used to define the hydraulic radius. This
approach yields Curve II in Fig. 5.
Consider the other two alternative approaches that employ the Manning equation. In one approach, the dependence of n on h/D is taken into account, and the usual definition of the hydraulic radius is employed [Curve III and
Equation (33)]. In the other approach, n 5 nf is assumed
to be constant and Escritts definition of hydraulic radius
is employed [Curve IV and Equation (34)]. The possibility of using this latter approach was mentioned by Saat
(1990) and recommended by Wheeler (1992). Since the Qf
values predicted by these two approaches are the same
(both using the Manning equation), the closeness of Q/Qf
values for flow depths h/D . 0.1 implies the closeness of
predicted Q values in the same range.
To make the comparison concrete, assume that nf, D,
S, and h/D are known, and the value of Q will be calculated. Let QIII and QIV denote the Q values calculated by
the two approaches, respectively. Using Equations (2),
(5), and (6), the following is obtained:
QIV
R
(A/nf)Re2/3 S1/2
}
5 }
}
5 }e
2/3
1/2
QIII
Rh
(A/n)Rh S
2/3
1 2 1 }n 2
f
u 1 sin(u/2)
5 }}
u
22/3
f(u)
(35)
where QII represents the value calculated assuming constant n and the usual definition of Rh:
(A/nf)Rh2/3 S1/2
QII
R
}
5}}
5 }h
2/3
1/2
Q IV
Re
(A/nf)Re S
2/3
1 2
u 1 sin(u/2)
5 }u}
2/3
(36)
(A/nf)Rh2/3S1/2
QII
n
}
5 }}
5 } 5 f(u)
QIII
nf
(A/n)Rh2/3S1/2
(37)
1 2
The rightmost expression of Equation (36) was plotted in Fig. 4 (dashed line) together with the right-hand
side of Equation (37) [f(u), solid line]. Again, it is seen
that the difference between these two functions is not
very large, and their ratio QIV /Q III [Equation (35)] is not
far removed from 1.0 when 0.1 # h/D # 1.0.
From Fig. 4, it is apparent that each of QIII and QIV differs from QII by as much as 15 to 30% in the range 0.2 ,
h/D , 1.0. (One caveat: it is assumed that n 5 nf is the value
used in calculating QII. If the constant value used for n is
the value corresponding to, say, 50% filled pipe, then a
smaller value for QII will be predicted.) It is also seen that,
when compared to using a constant n 5 nf value in conjunction with the usual definition of the hydraulic radius
(giving QII), either taking the variation of n with h/D into
account (giving QIII), or using Escritts definition of hydraulic radius (giving QIV), leads to comparable decreases
in the predicted values of Q in the range 0.1 # h/D # 1.0.
No attempt has been made here to compile past experimental data to determine the most accurate approach. It is
apparent, however, that accounting for the variation of the
roughness coefficient with flow depth as suggested by
Camp (1946) leads to good general agreement with the experimental data referred to by Escritt (1984) and Wheeler
(1992). Simple explicit equations have been presented here
Figure 7. Q III : obtained with variable n and the usual definition of Rh. QIV : obtained with constant n and Escritts definition
of the hydraulic radius Re.
381
h
} 5 0.0047Y3 2 0.0453Y 2 1 0.2554Y
D
(42)
(43)
(38)
(2p 2 8A/D2) 1 sin 16(2p 2 8A/D2 )2 2 6(2p 2 8A/D2 ) cos 16((2p 2 8A/D2)2
u 5 2p 2 } } } } } } } } }
3
1 2 cos 16(2p 2 8A/D2 )2
(39)
8A
}2 5 u 2 sin u
D
S 5 1(D/2Q)4/3V10/3n2f 2 (u 1 sin(u/2))4/3
(8A/D2
(40)
8(Q/V)/D2)
5
for u when the left-hand side
is
known. Remembering that the Manning equation is itself
an approximate relation, and considering the possible
lack of precision in the other variables in a system (e.g.,
n values), Equations (38) and (39), which are arguably
quite cumbersome for manual computations, may often
be more accurate than necessary. The following simpler
formula is therefore presented here for use in quick manual calculations (see Fig. 8):
u 5 2.51Y20.34[cos21 (1 2 0.3183Y)]1.33
(41)
(44)
(45)
This formula can be combined with Equation (43) to estimate S directly without having to calculate u or h/D
first:
S 5 4.49n2f Q 20.82D0.309 V 2.82
(46)
382
AKGIRAY
Figure 8.
APPLICATIONS
The following examples illustrate the applications of
some of the new equations proposed in this paper.
Example 1
Determine the depth of flow and velocity in a sewer
with a diameter of 300 mm laid on a slope of 0.005 m/m
Figure 9.
h
1
} 5 } (1 2 cos(2.242/2)) 5 0.283
D
2
2 5 0.631 m/s
Example 2
Calculate the minimum slope of a sewer to carry a flow
of 0.01 m3 /s. The minimum velocity is specified as 0.5
m/s and as a preliminary value the diameter of the sewer
will be assumed to be 0.45 m. Assume nf 5 0.013. [This
example was used by Esen (1993) and Li (1994) to illustrate their calculation methods.]
First calculate 8A/D2 5 8Q/(VD2) 5 8(0.01)/0.5(0.45)2
5 0.7901.
From Equation (42),
h
} 5 0.0047(0.7901)3 2 0.0453(0.7901)2
D
1 0.2554(0.7901) 5 0.176
h 5 (0.45)(0.176) 5 0.079 m
This should be compared with the exact value
0.0825m. The error is 0.35 cm, that is, ,0.8% of the pipe
diameter. Equation (15b) predicts 0.0834 m, which is
more accurate. It should be remembered, however, that
Equation (15) is applicable for h/D , 0.4 only, whereas
Equation (42) can be used for essentially all values of
h/D. Alternatively, using Equation (41), better accuracy
can be obtained albeit in two steps:
u 5 2.51(0.7901)20.34[cos21
(1 2 0.3183(0.7901))]1.33 5 1.7730 radians 5 101.58
Substituting this value into Equation (3),
h
1
} 5 } (1 2 cos(1.7730/2)) 5 0.184, and h
D
2
5 (0.45m)(0.184) 5 0.0828 m
The exact values of u and h/D are 1.7703 radians
(5101.43) and 0.183, respectively. To estimate the
slope, the calculated value of u may first be used in Equations (5) and (19) to calculate Rh and n, respectively, and
383
then Equation (1) can be employed. It is simpler to use
Equation (46):
S 5 4.49(0.013)2 (0.5)2.82(0.45)0.309
(0.01)20.82 5 0.00367
The exact value is 0.00368, that is, the error is 0.28%. If
the dependence of n on h/D is ignored, and the value n 5
nf 5 0.013 is used in the calculations, then Equation (43)
gives [with f(u) ; 1]:
S 5 ((0.45/2 3 0.01)4/30.510/30.0132 )
1.7734/3 5 0.00229
The exact value is 0.00228. Li (1994) obtained
0.00227, whereas Esen (1993) found 0.00232. These authors did not consider the variation of n with the depth
of flow. This example illustrates the fact that the effect
of this variation may be quite significant.
384
AKGIRAY
oped and presented. Another set of explicit relations facilitating the estimation of u, h/D, and S from known values
of D, Q, and V are presented. A simple explicit equation
that takes the dependence of Mannings n on h/D into account is developed to estimate S from given values of D,
Q, and V. Examples are provided to illustrate the applications of the proposed equations. All of the formulas proposed in this paper are accurate enough to be used in computer calculations (so that simpler and more robust
programs can be written), and simple enough to be used
with a hand calculator.
APPENDIX
For completely filled pipe flow, it is widely accepted
that the use of the Darcy-Weisbach equation in conjunction with the Colebrook formula (or its equivalent, the
Moody diagram) is the most accurate calculation method.
The Darcy-Weisbach equation is written as follows:
L V2
hf 5 f } }
D 2g
(47)
(48)
31
e
}
3.7D
1.11
6.9
1 }
NR
(49)
When applied to completely filled pipe flow, the Manning equation should lead to predictions consistent with
the above equations. Setting u 5 2p, h 5 D, n 5 nf, and
Rh 5 D/4 in the Manning equation and combining it with
Equations (47) and (49) gives, after some algebraic manipulation, the following result:
nf 5
0.22D1/6
}}}
}
e 1.11 6.9
22g log } }
1 }}
NR
3.7D
31
(50)
If the Colebrook formula and the Darcy-Weisbach equation are assumed to be applicable to partially filled pipes
as well, the following equation is obtained for large values of Reynolds number (Massey, 1989; Finnemore and
Franzini, 2002):
Rh1/6
}
}
}
n5
14.8Rh
}
}
42g log
e
(52)
Using Equation (5) for the hydraulic radius and combining Equations (51) and (52), the following is obtained:
(u 2 sin u)1/6
n
log(3.7D/e)
} }}}
} 5 } 1/6
u
nf
log(3.7D(u 2 sin u)/(eu))
(53)
385
REFERENCES
ASCE. (1976). Manual of Practice no.37: Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. New York. (Quoted
in Wheeler (1992).)
BENEFIELD, L.D., JUDKINS, J.F., and PARR, A.D. (1984).
Treatment Plant Hydraulics for Environmental Engineers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
CAMP, T.R. (1946). Design of sewers to facilitate flow. Sewage
Works J., 18, 316.
CHOW, V.T. (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
ESCRITT, L.B. (1984). Flow in sewers. In: Sewerage and
Sewage TreatmentInternational Practice. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
ESEN, I.I. (1993). Design of sewers based on minimum velocity. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 119(3), 591594.
ESEN, I.I. (1994). Closure by author. ASCE J. Environ. Eng.
120(5), 1350.
NOMENCLATURE
A
D
e
f
f
area of flow
pipe diameter
roughness height
functional relation between n/nf and u
(In the Appendix) friction factor defined by the
Darcy-Weisbach equation
h Water depth
n Mannings roughness coefficient
nf the value of n when h 5 D
NR Reynolds number
Q volumetric flow rate
Qf volumetric flow rate when the pipe is full
Rh hydraulic radius based on Equation (5)
Re hydraulic radius based on Equation (6)
S slope of the energy grade line
V velocity of flow
Vf velocity when the pipe is full
Y intermediate quantity defined as 8A/D2
u surface angle in radians (Fig.1)
FINNEMORE, E.J., and FRANZINI, J.B. (2002). Fluid Mechanics, 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 427428.
GIROUD, J.P., PALMER, B., and DOVE, J.E. (2000). Calculation of flow velocity in pipes as a function of flow rate.
Geosynthet. Int. 7(46), 583600.
GRANT, D.M. (1992). ISCO Open Channel Flow Measurement Handbook, 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: ISCO.
LI, K.S. (1994). Discussion of design of sewers based on minimum velocity by I.I. Esen. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 120(5),
13481350.
MASSEY, B.S. (1989). Mechanics of fluids, 6th ed. London:
Chapman & Hall.
METCALF & EDDY. (1981). Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of Wastewater. New York: McGraw-Hill.
SAATI, A.M. (1990). Velocity and depth of flow calculations
in partially filled pipes. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 116(6),
12021212.
SAATI, A.M. (1992). Closure by author. ASCE J. Environ.
Eng. 118(3), 454.
WHEELER, W. (1992). Discussion of velocity and depth of
flow calculations in partially filled pipes by A.M. Saat.
ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 118(3), 451454.